Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

Abby Maas, of Pella adds a pair of baby shoes to the display representing the lives lost to abortion in Iowa during the pro-life Rally for Life on Thursday, March 30, 2017, at the Iowa Capitol. (Photo: Kelsey Kremer/The Register)

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland sued over the waiting period requirement, which then-Gov. Terry Branstad signed into law last year. The law was placed on hold during the challenge.

"We conclude the statute enacted by our legislature, while intended as a reasonable regulation, violates both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution because its restrictions on women are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest of the state," Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote in the 5-2 ruling.

"The state has a legitimate interest in informing women about abortion, but the means used under the statute enacted does not meaningfully serve that objective. Because our constitution requires more, we reverse the decision of the district court," the justice wrote.

The 2017 waiting-period law is separate from a stricter law that the Republican controlled Legislature passed this spring. That "fetal heartbeat" law would bar abortions after about six weeks.

The 2018 law, which would effectively bar most abortions, would be the strictest in the country. It was also placed on hold during a legal challenge.

The 2017 law said a woman could not have an abortion for at least 72 hours after an initial appointment. At that appointment, the woman would have to be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound scan of her fetus and would be given information about abortion and its options, including adoption.

On behalf of the court, Cady wrote that the waiting period would require many women with little money or access to transportation to travel twice to distant cities for appointments with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. In some cases, the change would cost women hundreds of dollars in extra costs, including for transportation and lodging.

Planned Parenthood already declines to proceed with abortions for women who are unsure of their decisions, the chief justice wrote.

Supporters of Planned Parenthood gathered for a rally on Friday, May 4, 2018, at the Iowa Capitol grounds in Des Moines. The rally called for Gov. Kim Reynolds to veto SF 359, the six-week abortion ban.(Photo: Bryon Houlgrave/The Register)

"Without a mandatory delay in effect, the evidence showed that women who are conflicted in their decision or under duress do not receive the procedure and, instead, are given more time to consider or given resources to pursue alternatives," he wrote.

"The imposition of a waiting period may have seemed like a sound means to accomplish the state’s purpose of promoting potential life, but as demonstrated by the evidence, the purpose is not advanced," the ruling states. "Instead, an objective review of the evidence shows that women do not change their decision to have an abortion due to a waiting period."

The five-justice majority also found that the waiting-period law violated Iowa women's constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

"Without the opportunity to control their reproductive lives, women may need to place their educations on hold, pause or abandon their careers, and never fully assume a position in society equal to men, who face no such similar constraints for comparable sexual activity," Cady wrote.

Iowa law imposes waiting periods for other important life decisions, he also noted.

"We have a three-day waiting period for marriage. There is a 72-hour waiting period after birth for adoption. There is a 90-day waiting period for divorce," he wrote. "No one can reasonably question the legislature’s power to impose these waiting periods before Iowans begin or end a marriage or give up a newborn baby for adoption. So why can’t the legislature impose a waiting period before an abortion?"

This is the first time since 2015 that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on a major abortion case. In the 2015 case, the justices unanimously upheld the use of telemedicine abortions after a state medical board tried to ban the practice.

The court found the abortion restrictions constituted an undue burden on women's constitutional rights.